BlackSabbath Posted April 17, 2004 Report Share Posted April 17, 2004 <spock> ...this thing you humans call humour... it is highly irrational... </spock> I hope you were kidding there, BlackSabbath Kidding? Why woiuld i be kidding? Your post was most illogical, Jim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Posted April 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2004 Supply and Demand - exactly It is the fact that Footballers, rather than engineers, are in high demand that demonstrates societies lack of perspective... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSabbath Posted April 17, 2004 Report Share Posted April 17, 2004 Supply and Demand - exactly It is the fact that Footballers, rather than engineers, are in high demand that demonstrates societies lack of perspective... No. Footballers are in shorter supply, relative to demand, than engineers and men with very big wallets are willing to pay for them. Nothing wrong with that in my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Posted April 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2004 Then are views differ considerably. The price of a product will be relative to its demand; the demand is relative to peoples values. Even though Availability might be scare one can still correlate a link between the price of a certain product and the values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted April 17, 2004 Report Share Posted April 17, 2004 Even though Availability might be scare one can still correlate a link between the price of a certain product and the values. Yes, but this is not to say that their is no corrolation between availability and price. Price actually depends on both the amount of value placed upon it by consumers and the amount of the product that one may get ahold of. Note, also, that the primary reason footballers are paid so much is becuase of their resale value. They get paid so much because so many people are willing to pay a couple of bucks to sit at Old Trafford and watch them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted April 17, 2004 Report Share Posted April 17, 2004 It is the fact that Footballers, rather than engineers, are in high demand that demonstrates societies lack of perspective... Sporting events, much like art, have value in what they represent. You wouldn't say the above about great sculptors, why about footballers? There is absolutely nothing wrong with placing value in a sporting event. In fact, I would argue that our society's love of sports is revealing of its great sense of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Posted April 18, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2004 Yes availability is as important as value. In the case of football I still have reservations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSabbath Posted April 18, 2004 Report Share Posted April 18, 2004 Yes availability is as important as value. In the case of football I still have reservations. What reservations? Why? And I take that to mean all sports stars and pop stars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axiom Posted April 19, 2004 Report Share Posted April 19, 2004 I think all of you are missing something important in the salary calculation here, which is the number of positions available for a given job. Only a very small number of football players will be able to support themselves playing football. At the same time, the amount of revenue generated by football as a sport is fairly large. Notice that the amount of revenue generated by engineering as a profession is vasly (VASTLY) larger than by football, but because the number of engineering positions available (and necessary) is also fairly large, the total amount of money generated by engineers divided by the number of engineers out there will give a salary much lower than that of football players. I don't really think it's really a question of bad values in our society. Why are there so few positions available for football players? simple. Because having too many positions would defeat the whole enterprise of celebrity, which is a crucial part of being a football player. There is no way you would be able to keep track of the sport if there were a million teams in the US - the most you could handle is maybe a hundred (I don't know how many there are? is a hundred professions teams about right?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted April 19, 2004 Report Share Posted April 19, 2004 Axiom: Based on our terminology, I think we were talking about soccer, not american football. There are 32 professional american football teams. I don't really think it's really a question of bad values in our society. You are correct, it is not. Enjoying a sport is not an indicator of bad values but of good ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axiom Posted April 19, 2004 Report Share Posted April 19, 2004 Based on our terminology, I think we were talking about soccer, not american football. Same idea, different sport... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Posted April 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 I was originally talking about soccer in the UK, where stars become idolized media icons and get paid more than they know how to spend. Just take a look at the entertainment industry - it is a culture machine that spurns out abysmal packaged crap that we are conditioned to 'appreciate' through a constant media drip. In the world of the media, happiness becomes mere recoginition of popular music/film. To be 'happy' people just have to be connected, plugged into these popular mediums. This isnt true aesthetic appreciation, it isnt even happiness, its just the negation of fear, the reassurance from big mother that as long as we're up to date things must be ok. It must be understood that happiness can be moulded, and moulded to bring great profit, but in some of these cases at the expense of some pretty basic principles. One should never compromise anothers humanity to make a profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 Nobody's compromising another's humanity; the other has compromised it himself already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Posted April 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 I accept the responsibility falls on the individual, but you can encourage indivuality or you can exploit their weakness; the latter makes the quicker buck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 If a person refuses to think, he deserves what's coming to him. Not only is he responsible, but "justice" (the justice of bad music) is served. If you refuse to pick your own taste in music, then if another person picks it for you, you deserve no more than what he picks for you. And he deserves all the money you're willing to shell out for it for placing on him the responsibility of picking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Posted April 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 One of the most power methods of control is by offering false choices. If you blind a consumer with choices, convincing him/her that he/she needs those products, be they music/films or cosmetics, you are intentionally making it harder for them to choose an other way. In order to sell, some try to blind people from thinking through in an objective way. Whilst I agree that it is a sad state of affairs for people to refuse to think, I would argue many are unconsiously and intentionally being duped into not doing so, in the interests of profit. Slaving peoples minds as a means to increasing ones means is a sure abuse of a the capitalist system that coulld otherwise be used to great ends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 If they refuse to think, they justly deserve the consequences, even should they be choices being made for them poorly. Do you agree or disagree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSabbath Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 If you blind a consumer with choices, Why are we even having this conversation? The premise is entirely false as capitalism has never failed. And if people have rubbish taste in your view, then that's their hard cheese. End of story. And how on earth do you blind a consumer with choices? And if you think this is wrong, Charles, then suggest a solution and stop the nihilistic carping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Posted April 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 If you actually read the beyond the thread, not just the title, you might understand what was meant by it. The solution lies in companies taking more responsibilty for their products - realizing their long term effects on society, which in the end come back at them when they got a nation of senseless gorping fools trying to decide which logo will keep'em happy rather than actually trying to do something worthwhile with their lives. Oh, and y_feldbum, has it ever occured to you that by encouraging, even demonstrating how to think it may actually be better of for you in the long term?? What would the products be like in a world where people were self-aware enough to know that gorging yourself on alcohol, fags and colesterol is not conducive to living, where people were self-respecting enough to not waste away their lives in front of a tv screen? - That world isnt here, and the opposite is being encouraged - cos it turns a quick profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSabbath Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 The solution lies in companies taking more responsibilty for their products - realizing their long term effects on society, which in the end come back at them when they got a nation of senseless gorping fools trying to decide which logo will keep'em happy rather than actually trying to do something worthwhile with their lives. What would the products be like in a world where people were self-aware enough to know that gorging yourself on alcohol, fags and colesterol is not conducive to living, where people were self-respecting enough to not waste away their lives in front of a tv screen? - That world isnt here, and the opposite is being encouraged - cos it turns a quick profit. Companies sell us things like Tobacco and Alcohol because people enjoy them and there is a legitimate demand for them. And so what if they are bad for you? Some people think the enjoyment gained is worth the risk to health. This whole thread is an exercise in beating the air. It is not the responsibility of companies to do anything other than make the best products they can and it is up to individuals to decide what is best for them. The opposite of healthy living is being encouraged? By whom? That's another choice for the individual. And Capitalism has still never failed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Posted April 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 There are many types of individual, but one thing any rational individual has in common with another is an appreciation of life - as they understand their body is as much part of them as their mind. There is more than one understanding of Capitalism; as Rand herself explains, the moral understanding of it is quite different to the typical acceptance of it as common sense and practical. Capitalism in her sense is a philosophy, and philosophies are about how you approach life - and that Capitalism has never breathed a breath. Even in the most practical sense Capitalism has never, as many here keep reminding, had a full run - and those who say it is here, and is working have a warped understanding indeed. I think you need to check your premises; life is at the base of reason. Without life it has no purpose, and without reason life has a misguided understanding of itself, blacksabbath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSabbath Posted April 23, 2004 Report Share Posted April 23, 2004 I think you need to check your premises; life is at the base of reason. Without life it has no purpose, and without reason life has a misguided understanding of itself, blacksabbath. No I don't. As I've said before, this thread is based on a false premise. And even if a few people act immorally or irrationally in your view like buying the wrong music or drinking too much or eating too much fat and sugar then that is their personal failure and not the fault of the system, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearster Posted April 23, 2004 Report Share Posted April 23, 2004 While I certainly would not be in the cigarette business for moral reasons, I don't think you ought to focus your angst against such companies in a political context. Product companies are *not* the cause of the present bankrupt culture. The primary question for you to ask is: who is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Posted April 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2004 Fair point. That many companies make money by encouraging other peoples failings through the selling of dubious products isn't the worst example of twisted capitalism there is... ...perhaps the fact that such a large percentage of the extremely rich are so as a result of their 'work' in corporations that merely sell complex financial products that take advantage of the discrepancies in value systems is a better example. I am talking about the fact that by all accounts a huge percentage of wealth is contingent on certain theoretical figures on wall street, how 'playing' the stock market and interest rates are causing a massive, and unjustified shift in wealth. Its causes a sort of lava lamp effect - with the bubble rising and getting small as colder elements sink to the bottom until eventually the strand holding it to the bottom breaks... It cant go on forever, can it? Im not a qualified economist, but with banks collecting the interest they collect, and not investing it back into other enterprises - merely paying off there board members and securing there continued existence... In fact, theres a good essay in 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal' by Rand I recommend, which discusses how the Gold Standard is crucial to the preservation of true capitalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSabbath Posted April 23, 2004 Report Share Posted April 23, 2004 Where is the Capitalism of which you speak? There is plenty of twisted interventionism out there and you have been describing the anti-capitalist federal reserve which is a nationalization of the money supply and a step towards Socialism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.